On the heels of the failure (at least for the moment) of the Akaka bill, encouraging signs are emerging signaling that new doors are opening for those interested in protecting programs aimed at helping Hawaiians.

The U.S. Supreme Court, not unexpectedly, rejected a taxpayer lawsuit against the Office of Hawaiian Affairs on grounds that being a taxpayer alone is not enough to give people legal standing to sue.

At the same time, Hawai'i Sen. Daniel Inouye has begun work on a new law designed to protect federal programs for Hawaiians that does not depend on federal recognition.

Neither of these political and legal fronts is likely to dissuade those who believe any government program aimed at helping Hawaiians is wrong because it is race-based.

To be fair, those who oppose Hawaiian-only programs are not against the idea of government helping those in need. But their point is that the deciding factor should be need — not racial ancestry.

This misses the point. Both the federal and state governments (as well as those who voted on the 1978 Hawai'i Constitution) concluded that there are needs directly related to the ancestry of a specific group of people.

This goes back at least as far as 1920, when Congress created the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, aimed at resettling disposed Hawaiians on farm lots and homesteads. That responsibility was taken over by the state upon statehood.

Over the years hundreds of federal programs targeting Hawaiians, ranging from health and education to economic development, have been approved by Congress.

In 1978, the voters of Hawai'i overwhelmingly approved a change to the state constitution to create the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, a semi-autonomous agency charged with working for the betterment of Hawaiians.

There's no question that government has repeatedly recognized the value of programs aimed at bettering the status of Hawaiians.

The Akaka bill's primary focus was to take race out of the equation by recognizing Hawaiians as a political entity.

It is clear that much social good has come from all these programs. To be sure, the record of the Hawaiian Homes program and OHA, among others, is far from perfect.

But it is hard to argue that the general status of Hawaiians, and by extension, the entire community, has not been improved through these efforts. Those who oppose such programs must say how they would replace them if they were eliminated. How possibly could it be argued that society would gain with their loss?

As for the race question, the courts have long recognized that extraordinary situations (slavery is the predominant example) call for extraordinary remedies.

The task ahead for Hawaiians and those who support them is to convince the courts and policymakers that this, too, is an extraordinary situation demanding extraordinary remedies.